CRIM PRO RULE 126

Title G.R. No. 191532

Ambre v. People August 15, 2012
MENDOZA, J.
MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI, Petitioner PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondent
FACTS

Two separate Informations were filed against Ambre, and co-accused, Castro and Mendoza before the RTC charging
them with illegal possession of drug paraphernalia and illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise
known as shabu.

Version of the Prosecution

From the testimonies of the police officers (prosecution witnesses), on April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station
Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Unit conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police informant that
a certain Abdulah Sultan and his wife Ina Aderp were engaged in the selling of dangerous drugs at a residential
compound in Caloocan City. Aderp and a certain Tagoranao was arrested while Sultan ran away from the scene.
However, in the course of the chase after Sultan, he led the said police officers to his house where the police
operatives found Ambre, Castro and Mendoza having a pot session who were then arrested for illegal use of shabu.
Ambre, in particular, was caught sniffing what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled up aluminum foil.

The items confiscated from the three were marked and, thereafter, submitted for laboratory examination. Physical
Science Report stated that the urine samples taken from Ambre and her co-accused were positive for the presence of
shabu while the items seized from them were all found positive for traces of shabu.

Version of the Defense

Ambre vehemently denied the charges against her. Through the testimonies of Ambre, Mendoza and Lily Rosete, the
defense claimed that on the afternoon of April 20, 2005, Ambre accompanied by Rosete was inside the residential
compound in Caloocan to buy malong; and after failure to buy malong, she was left inside the residential compound to
look for other vendors; that ten minutes later, the policemen barged inside the compound and arrested her; that she
was detained at the Caloocan City Jail where she met Castro, Mendoza and Tagoranao; and that she was not brought
to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for drug testing.

Rosete further testified that after she had left Ambre inside the compound to find other malong vendors, she returned
fifteen minutes later and learned that the policemen had arrested people inside the compound including Ambre.

Mendoza claimed that no pot session took place on the afternoon of April 20, 2005. She averred that she and Ambre
were merely inside the residential compound, when policemen suddenly came in and pointed guns at them.

RTC Ruling
Ambre is acquitted for illegal possession; guilty of illegal use of shabu.

CA Ruling
Denied Ambres appeal on the judgment of conviction.

ISSUE/S

1. Whether or not the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was valid. YES
2. Whether or not the items seized are inadmissible in evidence. YES

RATIO

The conviction of Ambre stands.

In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is committing or attempting to
commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of the arresting officer. Clearly, to constitute a valid in
flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur:

1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Regarding the argument of Ambre that there was no prior valid intrusion in the residence of Sultan, the Court held that
prior justification for intrusion or prior lawful intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto. Thus, even
granting arguendo that the apprehending officers had no legal right to be present in the dwelling of Sultan, it would not
render unlawful the arrest of Ambre, who was seen sniffing shabu with Castro and Mendoza in a pot session by the
police officers. Accordingly, the apprehending officers were not only authorized but were also duty-bound to arrest
Ambre together with Castro and Mendoza for illegal use of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

To write finis to the issue of validity and irregularity in her warrantless arrest, the Court holds that Ambre is deemed to
have waived her objections to her arrest for not raising them before entering her plea.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed November 26, 2009 Decision and the March 9, 2010 Resolution
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31957 are hereby AFFIRMED.

2S 2016-2017 (BARAMBANGAN)
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_191532_2012.html